U.S Next Generation Battle Rifle & Squad Weapon

[Bergeron]

Are these Middle-Tier Acquisitions (MTA)? In that case, I'm not sure an AoA is required.

Looking around, yup, it sure is.

From an Army website:

The Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) Program is an iterative, prototyping effort, using Middle Tier Acquisition Authority, to develop operationally relevant, squad-level lethality to combat proliferating threats, informed by Soldiers feedback.

My DAWIA training was careful to explictly tell state that every single step or event was not required for most acquisition, and I get that. AoAs still help guide and show thinking.

Yes, actually. Belt fed MG's are by far the most effective 'casualty producing' small arm as the Army calls it. In a typical fire team, the guy with the SAW or M240 is the one that stacks the most bodies, mostly because fast ROF = more bullets in the air for a given target exposure = more 'opportunities' to score a hit.
It works both ways, and optic equipped PKM's and other rifle-caliber belt feds are a much bigger threat than AK's. The good news is the bad guys are typically very bad at shooting regardless of their equipment - so what they'd perhaps intend on being accurate, effective fire from a PKM instead becomes harassing fire via good old 'inshallah' guidance systems inc.

But if I'm having to shoot back at someone with a PKM delivering accurate fire on my location at 500+M, I want more oomph than 62gr 5.56, that much is sure.

Great comments, thank you @JRB. Optic equipped rifle-caliber belt feds are interesting and you make great points about their lethality. What do you think about how to mix DMR/SAW-AR/GPMG/Carbine weapons, and the precise kind of weapons those DMR/SAW-AR/GPMG/Carbine in an infantry squad to be generally effective against enemy GMPGs?

[JRB]

Great comments, thank you @JRB. Optic equipped rifle-caliber belt feds are interesting and you make great points about their lethality. What do you think about how to mix DMR/SAW-AR/GPMG/Carbine weapons, and the precise kind of weapons those DMR/SAW-AR/GPMG/Carbine in an infantry squad to be generally effective against enemy GMPGs?

By the time a typical squad of dismounted infantry has to neutralize a GPMG emplacement with rifle fire, shit's already gone sideways. 40mm grenade launchers and AT4's and that kind of stuff is a vastly preferred solution.

But to your point directly, I think with the USMC adoption of the M27 IAR we saw them take a proverbial swing at that issue - in essence, splitting the difference between a rifle and an M249 SAW and making it more accurate so you have a weapon that can do OK at 'more precise' shooting ala DMR, suppress an area more effectively than a burst-limited M4, and still do all the run-and-gun room clearing sorts of things that M4's do pretty well.
The M27 is (intended to be, anyway) jack-of-all-trades and that simplifies a lot of logistics and training, and it also means that whoever's got the ideal placement for that particular 'need' be it suppressing, or taking precise aimed fire can capitalize on that opportunity, instead of having a fire team with different weapon systems all over and in the wrong places when it counts - e.g. guy with the belt fed is in the perfect spot for a good shot but the guy with the DMR is in the perfect spot to have an MG instead. I've only handled some M27's at this point and they look nice, but I haven't fired one personally.

Personally I'd love to see a 6.5 or 6.8 round that was just hot enough to replace 7.62x51 in a belt fed application, and see it replace both 5.56 and 7.62 weapons of all kinds. Issue an AR based 12-14in carbine, an 18in-ish DMR, and a MK46-ish belt fed all in the same caliber, ideally able to use a magazine that's damn near externally identical to a STANAG pattern mag and hold at least 25 rounds.
Round it all out with matching 1-6x or 1-8x optics with a modern BDC that matches the ammo, and some nice 'maintenance free' suppressor options on a Surefire-like QD system, and I think we'd have a winner for better solving all of these problems. It wouldn't be a quantum leap over existing stuff, though.

[OlongJohnson]

I think we both have experience with situations where just going ahead and doing what you know how to do gets you way ahead of trying to do something that nobody knows how to do.

[spyderco monkey]

Thanks Spyderco for the comments

The polymer cases do insulate the chamber, but they have no effect on rifling erosion at the start of the barrel. This high pressure 6.8 round must eat barrels for freakfast.

The other thing is melting... I don't see how they are going to circumvent this. Nothing like a melted loaded round into your chamber to ruin your day.

With a standard barrel, you're absolutely right; 6.8 would have barrel life similar to 7mm Mag or .220 Swift - poor.

However, the barrel is one of the technologies being developed in NGSW:


At the low end of improvement, they could pursue something similar to what H&K did with the 416: use a superior steel and heat treatment to the standard 4150V @ ~34 RC (in H&K's case, 32 CrMoV 12 10 @ ~45 RC is used). Much like how a high end pocket knife stays sharer longer, the use of improved steel and heat treatments improves barrel life. Barrel life of the 416 is reportedly 50-100% longer then CHF 4150V (maintains 3moa after 30-40k rounds 5.56). This was quoted to me by an armaments guy involved in France's recent rifle trials, backing up several other anecdotal reports.

https://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/3...tiring-my-416/

At the high end, the Army has been working on 'Flow Formed Cobalt Barrels' for high end LMG/GPMG use. Here, rather then a superior barrel steel, the barrel is instead lined with a 'super alloy' of very hard metal (Stelite, cobalt, etc.)

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a608083.pdf

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100236122A1/en

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1008453.pdf

https://www.army.mil/article/52605/p...ined_firepower


In terms of polymer cartridges melting, thats not likely to be an issue:

-Polymer cases reduce chamber heat by ~25%
-The polymer used is a medical grade, high temperature resistant
-Only the LMG's are likely to get extremely hot chambers, and 2/3 of them are open bolt, while the LSAT has a chamber removed from the barrel, isolating it thermally from barrel heat.

Reportedly, a bigger concern was not heat, bur rather how well the cases can resist cracking in extreme cold. However this was an issue with traditional design polymer cartridges; neither the Textron LSAT or the True Velocity case have the traditional case 'neck' to fracture on feeding in cold weather.

[farscott]

With a standard barrel, you're absolutely right; 6.8 would have barrel life similar to 7mm Mag or .220 Swift - poor.

In terms of polymer cartridges melting, thats not likely to be an issue:

-Polymer cases reduce chamber heat by ~25%
-The polymer used is a medical grade, high temperature resistant
-Only the LMG's are likely to get extremely hot chambers, and 2/3 of them are open bolt, while the LSAT has a chamber removed from the barrel, isolating it thermally from barrel heat.

Reportedly, a bigger concern was not heat, bur rather how well the cases can resist cracking in extreme cold. However this was an issue with traditional design polymer cartridges; neither the Textron LSAT or the True Velocity case have the traditional case 'neck' to fracture on feeding in cold weather.

I am struggling with the idea that polymer case melting is not an issue. All polymers melt. It is required for molding. High temperature for polymers is above 250C. Combustion temps are much higher. My suspicion is the polymer case is not strictly speaking a polymer based on "the composite acts like an insulator against heat ...." I have an inkling that the cases have a ceramic component. The fact that the RM277 has cases that can be collected with a magnet suggests those cases have a ferrous component.

I also do not believe the polymer/composite cartridge cases reduce chamber heat by 25%; I believe the cases reduce chamber temperatures by 25% by better resisting heat flow from combustion inside the cartridge to the chamber walls. The heat energy from combustion is still there; it is still inside the cartridge. If not as much heat is being is transmitted to the chamber, more heat has to remain inside the cartridge. Based on the velocities of the new rounds, there is likely more heat inside the cartridge than there is with 5.56. But less heat is being transmitted to the weapon.

[spyderco monkey]

I am struggling with the idea that polymer case melting is not an issue. All polymers melt. It is required for molding. High temperature for polymers is above 250C. Combustion temps are much higher. My suspicion is the polymer case is not strictly speaking a polymer based on "the composite acts like an insulator against heat ...." I have an inkling that the cases have a ceramic component. The fact that the RM277 has cases that can be collected with a magnet suggests those cases have a ferrous component.

I also do not believe the polymer/composite cartridge cases reduce chamber heat by 25%; I believe the cases reduce chamber temperatures by 25% by better resisting heat flow from combustion inside the cartridge to the chamber walls. The heat energy from combustion is still there; it is still inside the cartridge. If not as much heat is being is transmitted to the chamber, more heat has to remain inside the cartridge. Based on the velocities of the new rounds, there is likely more heat inside the cartridge than there is with 5.56. But less heat is being transmitted to the weapon.

Thats exactly whats happening.

The same heat is generated in the cartridge, but because polymer does not conduct heat well, much less of the heat is conducted into the chamber before the casing is ejected. The result is a 25% lower chamber temperature vs brass cased ammo of the same powder charge.

In terms of melting, I'm not sure what exact plastic they use. PEEK has a melting temp of 343C/650F, as an example.

We do have the Dillon example though, that shows that the gun has to be extremely crazy hot to melt the case:

Dillon has a 1,500-round test they run on the M134D and found brass-cased ammunition will cook-off after sitting in the chamber for anywhere from 3 to 60 seconds. Using True Velocity’s composite-cased ammunition, Dillon recorded a 20-percent lower bore temperature (thanks to the case insulating the chamber), which ultimately led them to a 2,200-round test on the ammunition. Dillon had to wait 5 minutes before one case got hot enough to melt — but the bullet never left the barrel. The absence of cook-offs in a Minigun should bring a welcome sigh of relief from end users.

So a 1500rd burst in brass makes the minigun hot enough to achieve cookoff in 3-60 seconds aka super hot. By comparison, after a 2200rd burst (that much hotter) it took 5 minutes for the TV case to melt.

Given that these NGSW weapons are Battle Rifles with 20rd mags, plus the 25% chamber heat reduction, its unlikely any of the rifles will ever get hot enough to melt a casing simply due to a lack of ammo carried by the soldier. Whereas the LMG's have plenty of ammo and heat, but are open bolt, so the case is only in the chamber for 1/10th of a second based on 600rpm rate of fire, which is not long enough to melt.

The reason the case is magnetic is because the rim of the True Velocity cartridge is a steel insert, that has been overmolded.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is way out my lane, so I have some naive questions:

1. Is this really needed in the sense that current battle performance shows significant handicaps that must be addressed? As compared to a 'nice' thing to do?

2. All this sounds very high tech. Does it generate production bottlenecks if we got into a major war (not a camel chase), such that we could produce zillions of these sort of rounds, barrels, etc.? There's discussion that our naval repair and construction facilities are so limited that after the initial battle, we can't fix or produce anything for years. Would we be setting up the same? Current ammo can be produced in lots of places? Will this be a one special plant with limited capacity?

I recall during the handgun trials, some general said they were bullshit - just let me go to Cabela's and buy a zillion stock G19s and save all the money.

[TGS]

This is way out my lane, so I have some naive questions:

1. Is this really needed in the sense that current battle performance shows significant handicaps that must be addressed? As compared to a 'nice' thing to do?

2. All this sounds very high tech. Does it generate production bottlenecks if we got into a major war (not a camel chase), such that we could produce zillions of these sort of rounds, barrels, etc.? There's discussion that our naval repair and construction facilities are so limited that after the initial battle, we can't fix or produce anything for years. Would we be setting up the same? Current ammo can be produced in lots of places? Will this be a one special plant with limited capacity?

I recall during the handgun trials, some general said they were bullshit - just let me go to Cabela's and buy a zillion stock G19s and save all the money.

You were reading my mind, Glenn.

I'll never berate the research they did for failing to come up with creating a revolutionary capability gap ala smokeless powder vs black powder, as we'll never know where we'll end up with research unless we at least try.

As much as I'm for the increased lethality of the individual troop, I'm just not understanding how this creates any sort of appreciable gain for the money given that combined arms is the name of the game and it's not the late 19th century where individual ballistics is what determined the outcome. See the USMC EABO as a modern understanding of near-peer warfare; infantry perform a similar role (and have been since WWII) to the historical carabiniers; close protection for heavy hitting units (today: IDF and to a lesser extent machine guns) which degrade the enemy, allowing the infantry to then overrun their positions in close combat. In this regard, the NGSW provides literally no benefit over current systems in this applied context. Even if we identified individual ballistics of a problem area, there's still the issue of applying those ballistics effectively and that the average troop isn't going to do anything more with the Whizbang 2020 than he can with an M4.

I also have significant concern about the economic feasibility of the project if we were to fully convert....we won't always be fighting low-intensity wars, that should be clearly obvious to anyone paying attention to current foreign happenings and the decay of American hegemony. So, I think there's value in sticking with tried and true weapons systems/munitions where feasible that can be made by a system of decentralized, simple workshops.

From my viewpoint of limited and possibly erroneous information, it seems the best course of action is to issue out PIP systems like midlength gas systems, LPVOs of lighter weight, etc. Keep the NGSW for the SOCOM umbrella or as a limited arms room concept for task forces.

[Hot Sauce]

Personally I'd love to see a 6.5 or 6.8 round that was just hot enough to replace 7.62x51 in a belt fed application, and see it replace both 5.56 and 7.62 weapons of all kinds. Issue an AR based 12-14in carbine, an 18in-ish DMR, and a MK46-ish belt fed all in the same caliber, ideally able to use a magazine that's damn near externally identical to a STANAG pattern mag and hold at least 25 rounds.
Round it all out with matching 1-6x or 1-8x optics with a modern BDC that matches the ammo, and some nice 'maintenance free' suppressor options on a Surefire-like QD system, and I think we'd have a winner for better solving all of these problems. It wouldn't be a quantum leap over existing stuff, though.

Wasn't this basically the intent of the 6.5 Grendel when it was being unsuccessfully pushed for as a solution, because of it's long range performance being able to basically replace both the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 in one fell swoop?

[JRB]

Wasn't this basically the intent of the 6.5 Grendel when it was being unsuccessfully pushed for as a solution, because of it's long range performance being able to basically replace both the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 in one fell swoop?

Yep - same as 6.8 SPC projects as well. The rub always seems to be logistics chains, and it's likely that it wouldn't fully replace 7.62x51 in beltfed and other applications due to logistics and what could be best described as cultural preference within the military.